Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Where's the love, DoJ? Remember back when we were tight, when we were illegally spying on all those Americans? Those were good days, baby. We didn't need no warrants or paperwork back then, did we? Why you got to be like this now? Can't we just keep everything hush-hush, like we used to? Come on, you know you want to say yes--just like we said yes when you wanted to install all that spy gear on our trunk lines. You liked daddy's trunk, didn't you girl?

Show some love for AT&T, baby. Don't let it end this way. Let us tap that ass again, like we tapped everyone's phone for you. Let's get away from these courtrooms and just switch places, girl, with *you* bending over and *us* doing the tapping this time. Don't be a hater, DoJ. Let daddy take you all the way *up there*--above the law, just one more time.

Title II sections that were to originally expire on December 31, 2005Section Section title201 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism202 Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses203(b) Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information204 Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications206 Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.207 Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power209 Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants212 Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb214 Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA215 Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.217 Interception of computer trespasser communications218 Foreign intelligence information220 Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence223 Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures225 Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap

I use AT&T... but the fact they have an exclusive with Apple, and they want T-Mobile.... doesn't remind ANYONE here of another company we tend to love to hate?Speak about the "freedom" of the free market all you want, but I for one, applaud the governments actions here... Fsck AT&T...

Free markets are far from perfect; monopolies are only the most obvious flaw. Additionally, it's arguable whether a market dominated by a private monopoly is actually free. Free from governmental force, sure, but that isn't the only kind of freedom that is implied by the term free market.

I believe the definition of a free market is simply one where there are no artificial barriers to entry, for sellers or buyers. A market can be completely free and still have a monopoly seller, as long as nobody is stopping anyone from trying to get in the game.

The attempted blocking of this sale by the government is actually anti-competitive. They are telling AT&T it better not try to get very much bigger, or else. In other words, quit trying to gain so much market share. Quit competing.

Ummm.... I think it's still worth considering that we wouldn't usually be in the position of having to wrestle with a company achieving this monopoly status if govt. didn't originally CAUSE the problem with their manipulation and regulation of the marketplace. AT&T started out WAY ahead of everyone else in the telecom game because they were granted legal monopoly status for many decades. In a truly free marketplace, I'm not convinced monopolies really happen very often. They're more of a rare anomaly

Thanks. I think you're absolutely right, but I'm afraid it will be more difficult to convince people to change their idea of what a free market is than to suggest to them a different focus. It probably doesn't dispossess them of any false notions, but I don't think it reinforces any either, and in this case when the two appear in conflict it makes sense.

Thank you, I will. Probably at length, as I do so love the freedom of the free market, and the free market itself. It is one of the things I hold most dear, in fact. The very notion of the free market possesses a sublime beauty that rivals the considerable allure of free speech.

You see -- the "free" in free market is like the "free" in Free Software, in that it is broadly misunderstood and -- or perhaps because -- many attempt to usurp its meaning. "F

I wish ATT didn't exist. *MOST* people I know who have any interaction with them HATE them and have been screwed over by them -- and they gladly provide that IT WAS THEIR ONLY CHOICE when they did business with them.

I wish ATT would stop being such trash. And I can't believed people would put up with such horrid service just to use an iPhone.

Don't you know? AT&T will end up with more employees than it had. The fact that the net number of employed US citizens at the end of the merger will be negative is just a mundane detail that should be omitted.

They'll have more customers and more infrastructure, so they'll be able to compete better. Isn't it obvious?

It reminds me of the time my brokerage sent me a letter saying it was adjusting its margin rates (the interest you pay them when you borrow money to buy securities) to be "more competitive." As the customer, I thought more competitive would be good for me. Then I looked at the rates and found that the rates were higher for all brackets except one, which was unchanged. Apparently, "more competitive

Not really, going from 4 to 3 carriers isn't going to do anything positive for competition. Doesn't matter how you look at it, there's no competition with 4 carriers and going to 3 carriers doesn't strike me as a way of increasing competition.

My guess is that if T-Mobile really does go under that they'll end up being bought out by somebody like Century Link that doesn't have an arm in the market. Or that it would be broken up into smaller regional carriers.

I would probably end up with ATT until i wanted a new phone (i bought a mytouch 4g around a year ago), because ATT i believe is the only GSM/HDSP+ network around. Once it was new phone time, i'd probably go to verizon, or sprint depending on the phone choices. Since i got a high end smart phone you would really have to work to not get me to keep a high powered phone now.

ATT is split into 3 companies (or more). Each is forced to compete with each other.

Wireless carriers across the board end up needing to cooperate (share bandwidth) to please national plan customers, fostering price competition between companies, and yet increased coverage for all customers.

Since there will be several competitors, prices will be more aligned with customer desires instead of the 'limited choice' gouging that we experience now with the Oligopoly.

It doesn't. And I find it ironic that REPUBLICANS (those who tout 'competition') are questioning why the buying of competitors should be challenged.

Vote like a retard; vote Republican. They will lie lie lie and screw you all day, don't people see that? I realize both parties are pro-corporate, but you've gotta be blind or ignorant not to see how ridiculous it is to vote GOP/TeaParty(fake)/Republitard/Conservative nowadays unless you make $1M+/year. And even then its greed you'd be voting for.

We always laugh at Verizon for how they erroneously calculated billing, what about AT&T's fuzzy math?
4 competitors - 1 competitor > 3 competitors?
tens of thousands of jobs lost due to merger "cost reductions" a few thousand call center jobs?
Really? It boggles the mind how stupid they think we all are.

They don't think they know how stupid we are; they know it. They know this will all blow over and they'll be allowed to merge.

I am hoping from the bottom of my heart that this merger doesn't happen, but at least if it does I'll have a way to back out of my contract with T-Mobile. I will not be an AT&T customer. Never again.

That's not it, at all. They know that even if the the merger is blocked, T-Mobile is screwed. It's unverified by T-Mobile but customers appear to be leaving in droves, customer service is starting to suffer since the reps know they won't have a job in a year, and network improvements will stagnate leaving them so far behind the competition they'll look like Danica Patrick in a Sprint Cup race! Back to being serious, this will be just like what happened to Sun after the Oracle buyout was stretched out in

They know that even if the the merger is blocked, T-Mobile is screwed. [...]

You're ignoring the fact that if the merger is blocked, AT&T must give T-Mobile $3 billion in cash, part of its wireless spectrum, and reduce charges for calls into AT&Tâ(TM)s network, a total package estimated at about $7 billion.

That's a huge boost for T-Mobile. I'm also not sure where you're getting the idea customers are leaving; in this down economy the idea of actually unlimited plans for almost half of what AT

That's because the Repubs have been paid off by the big boys. They no longer represent you or me, they really represent corporate interests which have been bought out by all of that lobbyist money. They even managed to modify lobbying and financing laws to allow international companies to buy them off. To see how bad "your" representative has been bought off go here [opensecrets.org]

To think that Democrats haven't been bought off TOO, is to be naive. Essentially, all that is left is a bunch of corrupt corporate toadies. We'd all be better off if there was a severe earthquake right under DC, one good enough to open a crack, swallowing it whole, turning the whole fetid cesspool and every political occupant into magma.

Why do elected republicans always side with large corporations? The impact the merger will have on jobs is that they will be reduced as AT&T consolidates redundant positions.

FTFY

I would like to know why you think this is relevant? Republicans will not be responsible for how this goes down regardless of their posturing - the DoJ is Obama's, and the courts are unaffiliated.

I suspect that the majority of Republican voters would prefer the DoJ to prevail on this one. I haven't talked to anyone from either party who favors the merger going through, though several have expressed skepticism at the claim that "the Justice Department doesn't use litigation as a settlement tactic", a

The same reason the Democrats do - fund raising. It's not like the Dem's don't have their own corporate favorites, like GE, who wangled waivers from ObamaCare. They now even have their own version of crooked corporate friends in Solyndra.

This. I find myself to be a conservative moderate most days, with a few exceptions on some major issues. But the elected repubs are pissing me off. It is almost always about being completely polar opposite to anything Obama says or does now, that absolutely nothing gets done. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Obama, and the next time there is a republican pres. I will be bitching about the dems for the same reasons, but this is entirely why nothing gets done in the U.S. We spend more time pissing in each

...but there is no reason the tax code should benefit the well off and corps as much as it does.

Of course there is a reason... they paid for it.
Instead of griping about how unfair the system is, why not buy yourself a tax concession? It's surprisingly inexpensive. For $20,000 (less than the average American spends on Starbucks coffee in their lifetime) you can get your Congressman to earmark something for you in the next omnibus bill.

Well, there's that. I guess I meant legitimate reason, rather than simply bought and paid for. But you bring up two great points, first and foremost, everything is for sale in politics, and secondly that the legislation that is put up for vote is insane. Between all of the random earmarks and riders that have nothing to do with the rest of the bill, and the fact that the congressfolks rely on their aides to read this crap for them. Maybe we can all think of enough similarities that a few of us can chip in a

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Obama, and the next time there is a republican pres. I will be bitching about the dems for the same reason

Except for the fact that the democrats rarely are as cohesive as the republicans. This means that even when the R's hold the pres, and the D's hold the house or senate, there are always a few D's willing to vote with the R's in return for a pet project or two. This means the R's tend to get more of what they want even with smaller percentages. Even when the D's hold

I have not noticed any democrats making a serious effort to attack corporations. They get their political funding the same way the republicans do. Corporations learned a long time ago that funding all the political parties allows them to get support no matter who wins the elections.

I am equally annoyed with democrats. Now-a-days I criticize both parties, its just in this instance the republican reasoning gave me a wtf moment. The political system in this country is corrupt and irrevocably broken. The same corporations and special interest groups hedge their bets by funding both parties. This ensures that regardless of the outcome they still end up dictating policy.

By-and-large I am a little left of the fence, but only because corporate pandering is so obvious on the right. Large

No cable provider has a monopoly... across the US. But none has competition in its area. They're essentially mini-monopolies. Why do you think internet access sucks that much in the US? There is virtually no competition.

When I lived there (2000-2004) I lived through 4 different places. In the SF bay area. I had to change providers everytime, and everytime I had no choice.

I Agree, but the more glaring item for me is the question from republicans about "Did the decision to oppose the merger consider the impact on jobs or economic growth???". this is comical to say the least, as ALL mergers result in job loss and what I would call REAL economic contraction. The ONLY point of a merger like this is to create a company with the combined market share of the original companies, but with a smaller overhead through the elimination of duplicate administrative overhead. The ONLY peo

The only way they can guarantee this is by making clear contracts. If you want to take over T-Mobile, for the next 10 year you are to license the spectrum freed to anyone newcomer that is not a spinoff or daughter of AT&T for free. Maximum prices should be established and follow the cost of wholesale bandwidth for the next 50 years. Also, no phones on the GSM network should be locked to the carrier unless more than 3 nationwide GSM carriers exist. Non-negotiable, non-refundable.

For sufficiently small values of "increase". I love how they name all the competition like MetroPCS are serious competition to them. As far as I know this merger would have made AT&T the only provider of GSM in the US. All the competitors they named operate CDMA networks.

Most of the discussion of this merger in the mainstream media doesn't address this aspect of the deal at all. I admit I haven't read the DOJ's complaint, but again the coverage of the suit didn't mention monopolization of GSM services either.

Is this just "too geeky" for public discussion? As a current AT&T subscriber who was considering switching to T-Mobile before the merger was announced, monopolization of GSM services seemed the principal issue to me. I appreciate the ability to buy my own hardwar

Read this insider report on the state of the republicans in the USA (the dems are just behind them; but we must not think about lesser evils because that gives too many a SLOW path to recovery... which is why we only are allowed 2 parties... )

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of th

Wireless competition is fierce: prices have declined steadily, output is expanding, technological innovation is occurring at an extraordinary pace, and new providers with innovative business models have successfully entered and expanded.

What the kind of upside down, crazy world do they live in? Whose cellular bill has ever declined but by act of the customer switching to a more restrictive plane. What businesses have "successfully" entered and expanded in the market? I keep seeing fewer and fewer choices. We're now down to Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T and they're trying to take T-Mobile off the list. When Verizon gobbles up Sprint and AT&T am I to believe that's competitive and a benefit to consumers also?

House Republicans have sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Attorney General Eric Holder asking for an explanation of 'what went into the decision to challenge the merger and whether the agencies considered the impact on jobs and economic growth.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it AT&T's MO to merge then pretty much nuke the other company and fold it into their own? Wouldn't this eliminate tens of thousands of jobs?

You are correct on the jobs portion, but you forgot another reduction: Coverage. When Cingular purchased AT&T Mobility, Cingular cut off a lot of the towers/antennas that AT&T Mobility was operating. Only when Cingular has no other choice did it actually keep a "blue tower" or old AT&T Mobility tower operating. So, the idea that coverage will improve is horseshit. The current plan is the same as the old Cingular plan was.

I am pretty sure the prices will go down, for a very short while after the merger. It makes AT&T look good. Once the merger has been forgotten (read the very quarter), the price will be raised heavily.

I am currently a T-mobile customer and have been happy with them for over 5 years. They have a great selection of plans and phones, good customer service, and their add-ons aren't ridiculously priced. If this merger somehow goes through, I guarantee I will switch to a different carrier on the day it's announced. Again, Fuck You.

Separately on Friday, three Republican legislators asked the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to furnish more information about their criteria for evaluating the T-Mobile deal.

The three legislators — Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, Greg Walden of Oregon and Joe Barton of Texas — said that they were concerned about the impact that rejecting the deal would have on job creation in the country. All three are tied to the House Energy and Commerce committee, with Mr. Upton serving as chairman.

“It is clear that this is a complex transaction and it is important that government officials reserve judgment until all of the facts have come to light,” they wrote in a letter to the Justice Department and the F.C.C.